The Moral Theories Of Mills’ Utilitarianism And Kant’s Deont

The Moral Theories Of Mills Utilitarianism, Kant’s Deontology, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics

This exam covers the moral theories of Mill’s utilitarianism, Kant’s deontology, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics. The exam contains three moral dilemmas, each of which must be solved using a different moral theory. Be sure to cite your sources. Solve each of the following dilemmas using one of the following theories: Mill's utilitarianism, Kant's deontology, or Aristotle's virtue ethics.

Explain the different aspects of the theory you are using, and clearly show how that theory prescribes a certain action for the person involved in the dilemma. Be as thorough and complete as possible. Remember, this is not a test of your opinion; it is a test of correct application of moral theories. You must give a precise answer to the bolded questions at the end of each passage. Once you have used a moral theory, you cannot use it again.

By the end of the exam, you should have used all three theories once. For example, if you use utilitarianism to solve the first dilemma, you must use either deontology or virtue ethics to solve the second dilemma, and the remaining theory to solve the last dilemma. There is NO "correct" theory to use for a particular dilemma; that decision is entirely up to you. You may find it easier to use a particular theory for a particular dilemma, and if so, do so. You DO NOT need to explain why you have chosen to use that particular theory.

Paper For Above instruction

The three moral theories—Mill’s utilitarianism, Kant’s deontology, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics—offer distinct frameworks for evaluating moral dilemmas. Applying each in turn provides a comprehensive understanding of their principles and how they guide moral decision-making in different scenarios.

Utilitarianism: Maximizing Happiness and Minimizing Suffering

Mill’s utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that posits actions are morally right if they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This theory emphasizes the importance of outcomes rather than intentions or moral duties. Central to Mill's utilitarianism are the concepts of utility and the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain, with higher pleasures associated with intellectual and moral pleasures being weighted more heavily than lower physical pleasures (Mill, 1863/1979).

When applying utilitarianism to a dilemma, one must analyze the potential consequences of each possible action, projecting which choice would maximize overall happiness and reduce suffering. For instance, if faced with a scenario where lying could save lives, a utilitarian would support lying if the overall happiness resulting from the lie surpasses that from telling the truth, considering everyone affected.

This approach, however, requires a careful calculation of outcomes, which can be complex. Critics argue that utilitarianism may justify morally questionable actions if they produce a net increase in happiness, raising questions about individual rights and justice (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019). Nonetheless, its focus on aggregate welfare makes it a powerful tool for evaluating dilemmas with significant consequences.

In applying utilitarianism to a specific dilemma, the moral agent assesses the potential happiness or suffering caused by each action, and chooses the one that yields the highest net utility, thereby adhering to the principle of utility.

Kant’s Deontology: Moral Duty and Universality

Kant’s deontological ethics centers around the concept of duty and moral law, emphasizing that actions are morally right if they are performed out of duty and in accordance with a universal moral principle, rather than based on consequences (Kant, 1785/1993). The key concept is the categorical imperative, which acts as a universal law: one should only act according to maxims that can be consistently universalized without contradiction.

In applying Kantian ethics to a dilemma, the moral agent considers whether the action respects the intrinsic dignity of persons and can be universalized as a moral law. For example, if lying promises help escape a difficult situation, Kantian ethics would condemn lying because it violates the principle that one should always tell the truth, as lying could not be universalized without contradiction, undermining trust and moral law.

Kantian ethics stresses the importance of intention and moral duty over outcomes, asserting that morally permissible actions are those performed out of respect for moral law. It also highlights the importance of treating individuals as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end (Kant, 1785/1993).

Therefore, in a moral dilemma, the correct action, according to Kant, is the one performed out of duty, following a maxim that can be consistently applied by everyone without contradiction.

Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics: Character and Moral Habits

Aristotle’s virtue ethics focuses on developing moral character and virtues that enable individuals to live a flourishing life, or eudaimonia. Virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of moral habits and the virtuous character traits—such as courage, temperance, justice, and wisdom—that guide behavior in moral situations (Aristotle, trans. 2009).

In applying virtue ethics to a dilemma, the moral agent considers what a virtuous person would do in the same circumstances. This involves assessing what virtues are relevant and striving to act in accordance with those virtues, balancing moral traits to achieve moral excellence. For example, when faced with a decision about honesty, a virtuous person would aim to act with honesty and integrity, but also with tact and compassion where appropriate (Hursthouse, 1996).

Virtue ethics does not rely solely on rules or consequences but encourages cultivating a moral character that naturally guides one toward morally excellent actions. It promotes practical wisdom (phronesis), the virtue that enables proper judgment in complex moral situations (Annas, 2011).

In a moral dilemma, the virtuous individual reflects on what a morally excellent person would do, seeking to embody virtues that foster both individual well-being and social harmony.

Conclusion

Applying these three moral theories to various dilemmas illustrates their unique approaches: utilitarianism evaluates based on outcomes, deontology on moral duties and principles, and virtue ethics on moral character and virtues. Each provides valuable insights and methods for moral deliberation, emphasizing the importance of understanding different ethical perspectives to navigate complex moral issues effectively.

References

• Aristotle. (2009). Nicomachean Ethics (R. C. Bartlett & S. D. Collins, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published ca. 340 BCE)
• Kant, I. (1993). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)
• Hursthouse, R. (1996). Virtue Theory and Abortion. In R. Hursthouse & G. Thomson, feminist perspectives on moral development. University of South Florida Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1979). Utilitarianism (G. Sher, Ed.). Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published 1863)
• Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019). Consequentialism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

Through understanding and applying these theories, moral agents can better navigate ethical challenges with clarity and moral integrity.